RTD: More FasTracks cost hikes likely

RTD's FasTracks team is working on new budget figures for the $6.1 billion program, with all indications pointing to more cost increases when the numbers are unveiled in the next two months.

FasTracks absorbed a 29 percent increase last year, from the $4.7 billion level when voters approved it in 2004.

Since the higher figure was announced a year ago, construction costs have continued to rise and the metro area's economy has continued to stagnate - pressuring RTD on both costs and the ability to pay for it.

"The economy has changed a lot since the time we did the last evaluation," Liz Rao, RTD's FasTracks program manager, told the Denver Regional Council of Governments' Transportation Advisory Committee on Monday. "Basically what we established last year is quite different from where we are today."

The committee approved RTD's current plan and passed it on to another DRCOG group for review, even though the plan faces more revision in the weeks ahead and DRCOG's staff and consultants reported RTD's current costs and revenues may be overly optimistic.

DRCOG, which has approval authority over RTD's program under state law, said further FasTracks cost increases "should not be surprising." It also asked RTD to include lower revenue forecast and higher projected costs in its next revision.

Rao said the new budgets for each transit corridor and other element of the FasTracks program are being worked out and would be ready by late June or early July.

Advertisement

The $6.1 billion total cost was based in part on construction costs as of the end of 2006 and inflated over the remaining 10 years of the program at an average 3.4 percent.

But the Colorado Construction Cost Index, one of the key indicators of inflation in the transportation construction industry, maintained by CDOT, went up 6.1 percent in 2007.

"We have had changed in the economy and we have to respond to those changes," Rao said.

DRCOG hired a consultant to go over RTD's estimates for construction costs. The consultant examined a number of commodities RTD needs to build the various projects and researched the costs independently of RTD's estimates.

It found that for 31 percent of the items, RTD had used lower figures than the range of costs the consultant found in the market, while 53 percent of RTD's estimates fell within the range and RTD had overestimated 16 percent of the items.

Another consultant examined the FasTracks finance plan and concluded the transit agency was too optimistic in its forecasts for sales tax revenues, assumed federal grants and cost savings obtainable through partial privatization of some projects, for which agreements with private companies have yet to be negotiated.

That led the DRCOG to conclude that RTD was being too optimistic and that its cost estimate may still be on the low side overall.

"RTD's capital cost estimates are at the low end of the reasonable range," said Steve Rudy, DRCOG's transportation planning director. Its assumed inflation rate doesn't account for the possibility of new spikes in costs and its projected operating costs may be too optimistic, he added.

DRCOG also sounded a warning on schedule, as required environmental studies on several corridors are up to three and a half years behind the original schedule. While RTD can compress the projects and work faster to make up the time, the opportunity to do that will soon disappear with any more delays, DRCOG warned.

Archived comments

All aboard The Boondoggle Express.

elirenfro

4/29/2008 6:17:59 AM

..We have had changed in the economy and we have to respond to those changes," Rao said..

to respond to those changes please kill this ill planned project.

Marsella or whatever you name is, what say you know? And all you board members and politicians who wrote the letter saying FASTRACK IS ON TRACK

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jan/19/transit-plan-is-on-track/

Time own up to a big mistake. He we voted for it based on 'questionable data' you provided

Kill it.

vkberlin

4/29/2008 6:25:34 AM

When FasTracks was approved, oil prices were about a third what they are now. Not a third less, a third of. Oil was about $40 a barrel, now it is $120. This hits everything from the price of steel to the price of plastic, to the price of asphalt and concrete.

It is never going to be any less expensive to build infrastructure than it is right now. The longer we wait, the more we will pay. If we don't build it, the same people who are whining about the cost now, will whine about $10 a gallon gas and why the gubment didn't build public transportation. STFU.

moabite

4/29/2008 8:12:09 AM

Wow, this really surprised me that they underestimated the costs!!!!!!!

glaciator@hotmail.com

4/29/2008 9:10:34 AM

moabite

It is never going to be any less expensive to build infrastructure than it is right now. The longer we wait, the more we will pay.

The proposal is the wrong proposal.

Busses and bus lanes are the answer.

Cheaper, faster, last longer.

vkberlin

4/29/2008 9:41:22 AM

taxpayers didnt vote to approve this budget.

null and void. go back to the voters for the extra money...

JakPott

4/29/2008 9:57:34 AM

Buslanes that can be shared with HOV may be a better solution, but there's a social stigma against riding the bus that isn't an issue with a train.

PCR

4/29/2008 10:43:17 AM

In most areas, overall cost per passenger mile of light rail is lower than bus transit, when all costs are factored in.

Buses run on diesel or natural gas. The prices of diesel and natural gas are going to continue to rise forever. Light rail runs on electricity, which is cheaper in the long run. Coal, NG, wind, PV, nuke are all able to contribute to the powering of light rail.

Light rail cost more up front, but in the long run makes a lot more sense for long haul (over five mile) service. The final solution has to be a combination of light rail and short haul bus or bike.

moabite

4/29/2008 4:22:44 PM

How to fix social stigma of bus (cuz rail too expensive and inflexible and disruptive to traffic & noisy)

2. Rail's fixed guideways (the rails) are problematic: a.)unless they are grade separated, they disrupt road traffic. b.) they aren't shared by other vehicles, so the capital investment isn't optimized, c.) they are inflexible and can't adapt to changing real estate development (although they can guide development, which can be good)

Knights claim first team title behind victories from Schacht and WuDENVER — As Fairview athletic director Terrin Kelly took in the scene Saturday afternoon at Gates Tennis Center, he turned to principal Don Stensrud and mentioned they were going to have to do some rearranging in the school's trophy case. Full Story

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story